Who should be held responsible for the destruction of democracy?
Democratic Government essentially means the Government formed by the people. This statement gives a lot of unnecessary importance to the citizens of the country. The world has spasmodically witnessed the rise of authoritarian leaders at the helm of the Government throughout its history. When that happens, history pins the blame on the citizens for electing them and is held responsible for disrupting that country’s political environment. We could blame Germans for electing Nazis but are citizens solely responsible for electing authoritarian Governments? During the 1928 Reichstag elections, Nazis could secure only 2.6% of the votes, which increased to 18.3% in the 1930’s elections, and finally, they secured 37.3% votes in 1932. The Germans constantly rejected Nazis but finally succumbed to the acute propaganda. Now going back to my earlier question, how fair is it to pin the blame on citizens?
I used to share the same perspective and believed that it is the citizens’ responsibility to keep authoritarianism in check; after all, in a democratic landscape, we citizens have the most important paraphernalia, which is our vote. So why cannot we vote more sensibly and responsibly to elect the Government that will work for us and not make us work for them? But there are two big problems with that assumption. The first is forgetting that humans are inherently susceptible and in times of despair, they will hold on to anything that gives them minimal hope for a better future. The authoritarian leaders capitalize on this very fact to win the hearts and minds of the population that they are soon going to rule and not govern. These leaders share one common skill of oratory and passing off rhetoric. If you see the pattern throughout history, they come to rule the country when it has been through the worst. The people desperately want change and will shower their support on anyone who promises the same. The second problem with the assumption is not able to see the true intentions of leaders. Now, this might sound like the first assumption where our gullibility coerces us to vote for a probable authoritarian leader. Still, there is one stark difference, which is how a leader emerges to power. In the 1920s and 30s, many authoritarian leaders came to power through violence and coups. However, in recent times, there is a big jump from that. Now, these leaders are coming to power democratically, giving no hint of their authoritarian traits. So even a non-gullible citizen can be fooled into believing that democracy will be respected and upheld by their leader at all times. Currently, this is close to what is happening in India right now.
All this while we have been putting a lot of expectations on the people hoping that they will not succumb to authoritarian appeals. However, in my second assumption, I tried to show that those appeals are camouflaged in contemporary times, and the leader projects himself as a true believer in democracy. Another interesting notion plays an important role in giving rise to authoritarianism, and that is hatred. Hate is a great tool to mobilize people if used correctly. Many modern Right-Wing Political Parties use it very effectively to win people’s votes through propaganda and deception. The propaganda can instil this hatred against minority religions, classes, or immigrants depending on the environment of that country. In this hate-filled environment, many citizens deliberately vote for such leaders to punish outsiders. In that respect, the people can be held accountable for electing such leaders to power.
The above point on why hate is important for many modern democracies is because the deep-rooted hatred in people’s hearts is so strong that they are ready to forego their Fundamental Rights at the hands of the leaders they voted to punish the people they hate. I had to bring this point only to counter the argument if someone misinterprets that I have forgiven citizens completely for their role in the rise of authoritarianism. So while citizens play a small role, the political parties play a major role in establishing authoritarianism.
Democracy is a paradox in itself. It gives the right to every man to freely contest elections but has no provisions to stop a man from contesting elections who would eventually kill the democracy. If democracy tried to stop such a man, democracy would be considered undemocratic. So, where does this burden of responsibility lie? Short answer: It lies with the political parties.
Political Parties need to identify the man who is using their platform and has a sharp ideological difference. Such leaders become a threat to democracy and subsequently a threat to the existence of those same political parties resulting from democracy. History has witnessed how Political Parties gave rise to the leaders they thought can help them gain votes at present, and parties can discard those same leaders once their job is done. Though many a time, political parties indeed discarded such leaders temporarily, however, their immense public popularity gave them a chance to come back into the game. Hugo Chavez of Venezuela is one of the finest examples.
So while all this time we have been holding the citizens accountable, we forgot to question the Political Parties that gave them the platform for their temporary gains. While this will be very relevant to countries that witnessed the rise of demagogues with no prior political experience, the blame on the Political Parties seems about right, but what about countries where the Political Party itself became authoritarian like India or China?
Some might argue that India has not truly become authoritarian, which is somewhat correct but is on the path to becoming one which no one can deny. The leading Political Party of India is showing authoritarian traits by running the world’s largest social media army to drive propaganda against the Minorities and dissenters, belittling the opposition leaders, giving tags of anti-nationals who dares question the Government and shutting down independent voices of the Media. With growing Political Prisoners being charged under Draconian Laws and the Government’s tryst with authoritarianism, who should be held responsible for putting India, the world’s largest democracy, in its present condition?
We cannot truly blame the citizens who were fooled in the name of development nor the Political Party, which became authoritarian. Who should have been there to stop it from happening? The level of sycophancy among the current cabinet ministers of India rules out the argument that they should have been the first to protect India’s democracy; in fact, they are a result of authoritarianism.
India’s ruling party does not have decision-making of its own, and all the decisions are flown from Nagpur, which is BJP’s parent organization RSS’ headquarters. So even authoritarianism does not truly lie with the ruling Political Party but with a clandestinely operated organization. With this complex intertwining of Political and Para Military Organisations, the control and protection of democracy become even more difficult. In the case of India, it is even more difficult because this is not just something that happened all of a sudden, but it was a result of meticulous planning. The ideology of RSS has spread into many independent organizations, which have now been completely compromised. The institutions that were supposed to safeguard democracy from autocracy are being used as weapons to depose it completely- institutions like independent media and Courts.
When I was beginning to write the article, I thought I had the answer to the question, who should be held responsible for the destruction of democracy? But when I went deeper into understanding the advent of authoritarianism and totalitarianism in India, I am not sure if I have the answer. I could blame the previous Governments who did not do much to curb the powers of such paramilitary organizations, but that would be against the democracy for them, now, isn’t it? The dilemma that democracy plays a role in the destruction of itself might not be too overstretched to consider, after all.
